Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

9-11: How to find names of Americans who places explosives in WTC

Correction: Title should read "placed" not "places".

Yes, there's a way to find the names of those who placed the explosives in the World Trade Center.

This outlines how this can be done. The intelligence community has classified communication systems. Based on estimates related to the explosive size, physical storage/delivery locations, and the planning, we can make some inferences for purposes of subpoenas and discovery.

You will find the links to the Intelligence Community classified files, and the other information related to who was involved/how this was planned, and what we know they said: [ Click ] and also the types of Equipment used to support the subsequent cover-up.

Candidate asking questions: [ Click ]

* * *

The key will be to show the court that the discovery requests are based on something linked with physical evidence: Squib photos, likely explosives, lead time to install, and discussions required to plan the event.

We judge the American intelligence community Intel-Link has been intercepted, compromised, and there exist backup files and copies of the data showing who specifically in the US government planned, knew of, and supported the placement of explosives within the World Trade Center prior to Sept 2001.

This note outlines how to put the pieces together for purpose of supporting the ongoing litigation, discovery, and fact finding. Remember, the goal here isn't simply to hold people accountable, but to understand what is needed to ensure the intelligence community does not abuse its power and is more effectively overseen. Without a modernized oversight system, we can fully expect the Americans to do this again. That is not acceptable.

Here's what's going on [ Click ]; this is the case you'll need [ 418 US 683 ] to rebut the President's claims of privilege.

No argument: Explosives were placed prior to Sept 2001

At this point is clear that there were explosives in the WTC. We need to move beyond trying to “make the case” that there are or are not explosives.

Rather, the next phase it to focus on the specific types of explosives, the team size that placed the explosives, the lead time from Sept 2001 they placed, and then trace the actual purchases.

Based on the work, it appears it is well within the scope of possibility to identify the types of explosives, the possible purchase locations, and then identify the dates that funds would have been transferred.

Also, we know which contractors were in the building, and can pinpoint the dates when personnel were in a position to have access. Again, the entry-access logs can be traced; and someone knows which dates the explosives were placed.

Based on the free-fall times, and the observed detonations, we can make some guesses as to the physical size of the total explosive placement; the types of explosives.

Also, using the Richter scale, we can make some judgments as to the total explosive power placed in the buildings; and the range of explosives required to produce this effect.

Again, the key is to remember that if DoD contractors have moved these explosives, those transfers will trace back to specific upload, storage, download, and driver-hire times.

* * *

Things you can do

See what you can find out about this: This is full of intelligence types.

Also, here's an example of a DoD contractor/shipping -- not saying they did anything wrong -- it's just an example name -- see which lists this name appears on, and then see what kind of shipping contracts were let in early to late 2001 in the NY and NJ area. Here's the AMSA information. Notice what happens when you narrow the list to 2001 and NY/NJ areas: You get a very short list of potential movers in the pre Sept 2001 timeframe [ click ] All we're doing is eliminating "what is not possible"; then taking the various lists and overlaying them to see which very small number of people most likely fit the profiles of who may have been involved. Here is another cut -- they may have had a primary shipper/storage company, and in the event a problem they would need a backup.

Remember, in FY00/01 DoD over hired personnel in this facility, so it's not clear why there is confusion over what did or didn't happen. They should have had enough personnel to see what was going on.

Find out about this contract, and see who was involved with the Bandwidth upgrade, how long they took, and what methods they used to plan, communicate. Interested in the leases and physical locations where they had their offices, and the people who were involved --what link they had with the DC-area golfers, and also their travel to and from WTC7 in early to mid 2001.

We're looking for what type of communication there may have been between the explosive-placement team, WTC Security, and the delivery crews which dropped off the explosives.

Look into the results of this testing, see how they were used, and who may have used the results Steel testing This testing could have been ordered not to protect the facility, but to find out the minimum explosives required to do the opposite: What we saw in Sept 2001. You'll want to see which parameters in this test were then used in which reports; and how these discrete numbers were mentioned in the Intel-link files.

* * *

There is a way to find the Americans who committed these murders

The purpose of the information below isn’t to provide the answers to these questions. Rather, it is to show you that you’re on the right track; and outline for you the types of questions that can be answered based on the observed squib-detonations.

Going forward, it is hoped that is outline below provide a crude guide to others who are interested in tracing contracts, estimating team sizes, and doing research on which contactors would have been in a position to provide this type of explosive support; and also the physical locations where the explosives were fabricated and stored prior to final placement.

* * *

Using squib images to assess explosive type/amount

One thing we’ve noticed are the squibs. This isn’t news. What is interesting is to identify the specific floors where the squibs are located; then compare the explosions with the floors which we upgraded with new broadband.

  • Squib detonation photos from a variety of angles

  • Relationship between windows and floors

  • Approximate floors which the squibs were known to exist

  • Comparison with the contract terms

  • * * *

    Sample Questions for your analysis

    This analysis will answer several questions. Note some of these questions are similar, but there are different factors each question is focusing on.

  • 1. Which floors are the explosions occurring; Which specific floors were explosives placed [% of floors with wires, but no detonation]

  • 2. How do the explosions compare with the contract for the broadband upgrade: Is the floor the same as that of the cable upgrade contract [Contract terms]

  • 3. Does the floor number of the squib explosion match exactly the contract terms [Yes, no] [Overlaps, inconsistencies]

  • 4. Are there explosions on floors other than what was contracted for in the broadband upgrade [Outside the contract]

  • 5. Did this contractor do work outside the contract [Yes, no]

  • 6. Did this contractor or another contractor do the work [This one, another one]

  • 7. Did someone else do something at another time [Scope of work in time]

  • 8. How long would it take to do what the squibs are observed doing [Time, personnel, equipment, and surface area]

  • 9. How long would it take to place the known-identified explosives detonated and captured on film [Percentage of total, assumptions about non-photographed squibs]

  • 10. What percentage of the estimated C4-equivanent explosive power can be accounted for by specific images in the squib explosives [1T C4, less the total amount in each image; estimate of C4 per explosive burst]

  • 11. In order to create this debris pattern what other explosives would have had to been placed [Estimate of total explosives required, estimate of total explosives accounted for]

  • 12. What percentage of the C4-equivalent tonnage cannot be explained by the squibs in the photographs [Non-photographed]

  • 13. How long would it take to place the explosives outside the contract, and what other contract efforts would have to exist [Scope of work to place 1T C4 equivalent]

  • 14. Could the WTC collapse in free fall with only a percentage of the floors wired [When does the pancake theory hold true; or do all the floors have to be wired]

  • 15. How many floors are wired: [Number, percentage]

  • 16. What other wiring is required to get the result: Small debris, squibs, free fall [Estimate]

  • 17. Was there enough time to wire the building in one weekend [Yes, no]

  • 18. If the entire wiring was done in a single weekend, how many people would have to do the wiring

  • * * *

    Testing the Various Cover Theories

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the wire/cable upgrade was a cover. How can we prove that the cable they installed contained explosives; or that the work they did was at the time that the explosives were placed; or that what they did was consistent with the full explosives placed in the building

    * * *

    What can be determined

    We would expect to have evidence:

  • The cable was purchased

  • The company telephoned contractors and personnel during meetings and appointments

  • Records of the purchase of the cables

  • A trace from the original purchase order to the original cable manufacturing location

  • Storage locations leases

  • Entry-exit time logs at the locations

  • Manufacturing location

  • * * *

    Sample Data

    Note the links below may not work on a direct click; if they fail, simply copy the link, and place it in a new browser.

    Richter Reading

    Time – Which equates to floors Click


    Excellent Renderings: Floors vs. Time of Collapse [Click ]

    Answer: Pancaking of any of the floors would take to long [ Click ]

    Graphic: Detonation volume –vs-Floors [ Click ] Source: [ Click ]

    Top Floor: Dimensions [Click ]

    Top Floor [ CLick ]

    South Tower -- Squibs on floors: Floors 74-79 [ Click ]

    44th Floor Click

    Nonspecific floors: Reference Tower [ Click ]

    Explosive Flashes [ Click ]

    * * *

    Construction Photos

    [Click ]

    Rendering of the 96th Floor [ Click ]

    * * *

    A second explosive team.

    Evidence of different types of explosive charges, not just squibs [ Click ]

    * * *

    Assumption: WTC7 was the command post for the scenario.

    The explosives team would have identified the likely debris pattern. They key will be to know when the WTC7 personnel evacuated.

    Building 7 proximity [ Click ]

    WTC7 Squibs [ Click ]

    * * *


    The following is a list of recommendations for researchers and other people interested in the anomalies.

    When you are doing your analysis, try to focus on the specific floors, and see if you can make some guesses as to the amount of explosives placed at each floor. The goal will be to come up with a range of estimates as to the total tonnage of explosives placed; the total physical size of the explosives; and then guess as to the types of vehicles required to move the explosives.

    Also, in your analysis, develop a rough estimate of the type of explosive charges used. This will help identify which specific equipment was used to install the explosive; and the approximate version of that explosive. For example a specific explosive with a specific debris/dust pattern will have a signature that can be traced to a lot number and manufacturing point.

    The key at this point isn’t to second guess your work, but to build off the assumption that the building was wired; and to build a model of

  • A. What types of explosives were placed

  • B. Where did the explosives come from

  • C. Which funds would have been transferred to pay for the explosives

  • D. What physically had to be moved into the WTC to create this debris pattern

  • E. What other people would be in a position to notice this type of equipment well before Sept 2001

  • F. Which of the assumptions about the cabling are or are not supported based on the expected equipment uploads

  • G. Could the explosives have been placed within the timeframe, or would there have to be other efforts disguised as something else; and are there other entry-installation efforts that occurred many months before Sept 2001.

    * * *

    At this juncture, I’m not convinced that the explosives could have been placed within the WTC in a single weekend. This is physically too many locations. Further, the different types of explosives would mean that they physically had to raise and lower explosives which two different teams would have to be familiar.

    Again, it could be possible, but the issue at this point is whether we are looking at the right window of time. My view is that the explosive-placement-window [the time between first explosive placement and last explosive placement] is much longer than a single weekend; whether this placement started several weeks or months remains to be explored.

    The reason for making some informed judgments on this is that if we can bound the “most likely time that they started placing explosives” then we can get an idea of which dates to start looking for which fund transfers; and identify which contracts would have to have been in place for payment.

    Obviously, if they’ve paid for the explosives with cash, this is another issue. But the point is that at some point someone would have to physically do something at a specific date; and then these action-times can be back-linked with the NSA intercepts of the phone conversations. Again, if NSA has destroyed this data this doesn’t matter – the mere fact that there are gaps where there should be – combined with the “many usual gaps in evidence” – would support the contention that there were specific-known events prior to Sept 2001 that are related to purchase, acquisition, transfer, storage, manufacturing, placement, and then final readiness of the explosives inside the WTC towers [plural].

    Then we have to go back in time and look: How long before this entire scenario was executed did someone have to look at this and say, “OK” this is what we’re going to do. Again, this will then trigger some looking into the Intel-databases to find out which teams and studies were matching. [Here are the range of American teams used during the 9-11 support activity, and how they were likely organized: Click ]

    Namely, if based on the lead time away from the explosive-dentations, we can guess that the Intel-Link was discussing this scenario; and speculate on what other meetings would have to have occurred. The issue isn’t exactness, but to bound the time that the conversations were likely occurring; then trace those who had access to this Intel-Link and make them account for what they were doing; who they were talking to; and what they were working on.

    Then we can look for specific meetings, conferences, communications, and connections. This is connected to funding that is routed through Columbus Defense Finance and Accounting Service payment, and other means to contractors then a final bank account.

    Eventually, you’re going to get into a pool of people who are most likely involved, were well aware, and fully connected – but their stories are not going to be consistent. At this point, it is likely that their background stories were never expected to be executed – namely nobody ever though they’d have to explain their whereabouts from pre Sept 2001.

    The way forward is to realize that most of these people are still alive; and they were involved; the way forward is to know that their stories are not going to match. That is the issue which will confirm their involvement.

    * * *

    Using the judgemetns about explosives to pinpoint discussion times and data in the Intelligence Community Files

    The Intelligence Community has a well known classified communication system. For purposes of discovery, we'll have to narrow down the times into what is most likely the areas, topic, and times that these conversations occurred and are retained on Intel-Link.

    Remember, there are backup data of all the Intel-Link; and there are foreign intelligence intercepts of the Intel-Link transmissions.

    Even if the NSA and GCHQ have destroyed these communications, there are other sources to find this. The key will be to identify:

  • Dates when the planning conversations took place

  • The range of topics discussed

  • The assumptions that they would have had to use or consider

  • The other issues they were working on

    The above information is merely notional, but if we can create a profile for the range of “other issues” that personnel were working on, then we can create rough schedules for these people, and then see who would fit these profiles. Again, this may appear to be difficult, but it’s actually quite simple: You simple create a generic profile, and then start to identify who is more or less likely to be associated with each of the profiles.

    Eventually, you’re going to narrow in on some matches.

    Remember, history has already happened. They can’t change history. They can only make mistakes when trying to cover it up.

    Their problem is that despite all that they’ve done to hide this, they’re far closer to getting caught than they ever imagined.

    There is no statute of limitations on murder.

    * * *

    To Be filed

    The issue with these failure/destruct modes isn't to assert that they are or are not true -- rather, if they are true what required support would be required in terms of coordination, travel, storage, purchases, and communication:

    One possible chemical: Thermite [ Click ]

    How detonators could have been placed months in advance [ Click ]

    Here are various theories on how C4 was placed in the steel, leading us to explore what types of schedules were required to accomplish this work [ Click ]

    Recall the strange movement of the tower. This theory is that there were a second set of explosives, but the aircraft collected with the wrong building -- the explosives were designed to make it appear the top of the tower was collapsing on the impact point . . . which didn't exist. [ Click ]

    Possible images of what was actually used: There may have been some explosives left behind during the installation [ Click ]

    Hydrogen bomb theory [ Click ]

    Clear Sign of a Problem

    This image shows there was a problem with the sequencing. Using this image, we can get an idea of the statistics. Explosives have a confidence interval, if there are timing mechanisms, there is a probability of success and accuracy.

    Click on this image -- and notice the distance between the exit-point [at red] and the number of floors above to where the squibs are exploding:

    What the above image suggests is that at the extreme failure modes -- in terms of "something detonating when not expected" -- is that well down the column, there is an explosive pattern that is not consistent with the assumed-plan.

    Other view: Are these anomalies, or are they consistent with the theory that explosives were placed every 10 floors:

    [Click to enlarge: Image is placed her for educational/research objectives and falls within fair use of the Copyright Statute]

    If we assume that the original plan was to have a wave effect, we can then look at the alphas, and find out -- based on the anomalies -- how many detonations would likely occur to produce this. Although this may be the only anomaly, we can then apply the data to what is called a weibull distribution curve, then impute a failure mode for that type of explosive-detonation system.

    What this does is it expands the bounds of what is going on, and we can say that with x-confidence the destruction mechanism -- for it to include this type of anomaly -- would most like by Y-type of detonation system.

    Based on the unique failure-mode of this detonation system, we can then quickly narrow down our options as to:

  • A. What type of system it is

  • B. Who would know about it

  • C. How they physically placed it

  • D. Where it was tested